Talk:List of tallest buildings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Units

I added back in units, which are needed in a list this long and, also more convienet for c&p. I had edit conflict so I will try add that stuff back in. Greyengine5 02:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yikes, sorry for the edit conflict. :) --Golbez 02:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Np! I got most but not all of yours so you might want to check it out. hazards of wiki-ing! Greyengine5 02:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sears Tower

Look at this picture and tell me Sears Tower isn't highest Image:Skyscrapercompare1.PNG. Or at least higher than the Petronas Towers.--Jerryseinfeld 01:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The world body that handles these kinds of things considers spires part of the height, but not antennae. The spires on Petronas just manage to peek over Sears' roof. However, we all know it's not really the tallest, it has only 88 floors compared to 108 or 110, I forget, and its top floor is much lower. However, the least POV way of handling this is to stick with what the CTBUH says, and mention that image and the different interpretations. Taipei at least finally settles the bulk of the battles, by being taller than both Sears' top floor, and Petronas' spire - but it's still not taller than Sears' antenna. --Golbez 08:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

"Currently Taipei 101 tops all categories except highest point, where the Sears Tower is highest." -- and except for highest real piece of building that isn't just tacked on to try and cheat the record -- Sears Tower is still tallest, even when counting floors, for real, because the highest floors aren't just a frigging space capsule tacked on top.Citation Not Needed (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bank of China

The link from BOC (Shanghay) (No. 75) leads to BOC (Hong Kong) (No. 11). Please Fix it. 85.64.106.107 12:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. Lawrence Lavigne 13:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

October 2005 issue of National Geographic

According to the October 2005 issue of National Geographic, "Taipei Towers Above All Others" and "At 1,670 feet, the 101-story skyscraper dubbed Taipei 101 eclipses by 187 feet what were the tallest buildings in the world: the twin Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumper, Malaysia."

The magazine also goes on to state the "20th-Century Records" as...

Taepei 101 Taiwan,
1,670 feet, 2005
Sears Tower Chicago
1,450 feet, 1974
World Trade Center Towers New York
1,368 and 1,362 feet, 1972 and 1973
Empire State Building New York
1,250 feet, 1931
Chrysler Building New York
1,046 feet, 1930

I think the National Geographic has their sources correct. The Sears Tower is NOT the tallest building. The below skyscraper image cannot, and should not, be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Max (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Two buildings to watch in Australia

• Q1, Gold Coast, Queensland. Basically finished, 275m to roof, 323m to top of spire.
• Eureka Tower, Melbourne. Finished in 2006, 322.5m to roof, with a 53.75m communications mast being proposed.

JamesHoadley 03:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

These are both apartment buildings, so I'm left asking, is there a list for World's Tallest Apartment Buildings? ie Non-Commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.221.217 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Selected high buildings and Observation towers and other structures

What's up with the sections Selected high buildings and Observation towers and other structures? Seem pretty random to me - especially in an article titled List of skyscrapers. Either add an explanation of the selection criteria or delete, I'd say --Silvestre Zabala 09:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Observation towers and other structures

Currently The CN Tower in Toronto Canada is the tallest free standing structure (it is not considered a skyscrapper) it is currently the tallest man-made structure in the word. There are plans for a taller tower to be built in Tokyo, Japan, though as of April 28th, 2006 construction has not begun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaspe (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Freedom tower

Shouldn't Freedom Tower be listed here? --Brianhe 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, in a "future" section. --Golbez 06:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why, it is currently under construction - wiki it. NuttyProSci-Fi3000 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

China

China is China. Taiwan is Taiwan. Hong Kong is a SAR of the People's Republic of China. Alanmak and Instantnood are so busy edit warring over this article, that they've screwed up wikilinks. The "Bank of China Tower" repeatedly became "Bank of the People's Republic of China of Tower". KNOCK IT OFF. SchmuckyTheCat 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From the first two sentences it's pretty clear that User:SchmuckyTheCat is still asserting his point of view, which is in contradition with the official political NPOV policy on Wikipedia regarding Chinese-related topics. And, for everone's information, it was user:Alanmak's first recent edits to this list [1] that Bank of China Tower was replaced with Bank of People’s Republic of China Tower. [2] — Instantnood 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing about using the names "China" and "Taiwan" to refer to China and Taiwan contradicts any Wikipedia policy. And I don't care who changed it, you reverted to it, which is all I need to know about whether or not you're actually paying attention to your edits or just revert warring. SchmuckyTheCat 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't care what your care and what you don't. All I need to is your're not adhering to an official policy of Wikipedia. — Instantnood 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with SchmuckyTheCat here, that the People's Republic of China Tower, while it might agree with Wikipedia's PC approach to everything, is not very necessary. Everyone realises that you are talking about China when used on its own, and if people are so politically agitated by this change then I'm sure they can waste their time writing in here about it. But for sheer stylistic purposes, I think it should be kept simply, and referred to as, China. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by user:Alanmak..

Regarding [3] [4] [5] - In his edits user:Alanmak, notably this edit sumamry, is demonstrating that he has effectively disregarded the constitutional status of special administrative region with respect to the administrative division hierarchy of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Cf. articles 30 and 31 of the 1982 Constitution of the PRC). He has kept asserting his point of view that special administrative regions are ordinary subnational entities, comparable with provinces and equivalence of the PRC. He has also equated the English words country and sovereign state, or more accruately, regarding them as synonym, as reflected by this edit summary. — Instantnood 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The removal of parentheses from "People's Republic of China" from a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the constitutional provisions of the People's Republic of China or Hong Kong's status in the world. You'll notice that Hong Kong is the only sub-national entity of the PRC called out in the article. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of the discussion here I won't go into arguing on whether or not special administrative regions are subnational entities (for some may even argue colonies and protectorates are also subnational entities with very different degree of separation.) Nevertheless it's never wrong to say they're not ordinary subnational entities or administrative divisions. — Instantnood 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Commerzbank Tower

I am confused to where the Commerzbank Tower should be placed. The tower is 300.1 metres tall when measured up to the signal light. However, this spire which positions the signal light on the tower is removed from it's statistics and the tower has only been measured upto the roof of the building which is 259 metres. I am confused to whether this structure placed on top of the building can be classified as an architecturally integral element. - Erebus555 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can and must be taken into account. Somebody please put it up on the list.- THe iP 12:53, 26. September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest Skyscrapers Table Reformatting

The table of the tallest skyscrapers should be reformatted. Currently, the every five entries goes W-G-W-G-W and then repeats. The table would look better if it alternated between this pattern and the inverse of it so that there was a continual alteration of white and grey. If this is followed through, it might be good to remove the grey cells in between the groups of five. I wanted to check for any conflicting ideas for how the table should be formatted before I changed such a large table. —David618 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've created an example of my proposed reformating. —David618 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the order of the colors in the table but have left the breaks every five entries in place. —David618 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Buildings Under Construction

Should we include buildings currently under construction in this list? Like Burj Dubai? It currently should be around the 30th tallest building in the world. --KCMODevin 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think so because they are constantly changing. I think they should be added when they have been officially topped out. The Burj Dubai is still under construction and will be for a couple more years. It will keep growing and passing through the ranks. I think it should be more of a case if they should be added when topped out or when actually completed and opened... - Erebus555 20:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, we should have a future section, and as the buildings reach certain heights structurally, they should be moved up through the list. --KCMODevin 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea but I still think that it would take too much updating. Buildings are constantly growing and when a new floor has been constructed or added then that would mean it is updated on the list and when you consider that a floor is added at least every day, it would not be worth it. For example, the Rose Rotana Suites saw some of the fastest construction ever for a skyscraper of its size, this would have had to be constantly updated if a future section was added. Therefore, I consider it impractical. - Erebus555 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's impractical for a small amount of people, but this is a more popular article than others, and it wouldn't take much work. Plus this site does NOT have to be 100% up to date with a u/c building's height floor to floor. It just should be updated as it reaches significant heights... Burj Dubai was announced to be at about 287m recently. We should just go with their announcements, as it raises through the list, it should likewise be updated. It would also currently be the world's 42nd tallest building. --KCMODevin 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that but how many developers give out anouncements like the Burj Dubai. The Burj Dubai is to become the worlds tallest building so there is a lot of focus on it. For the shorter buildings such as the IFC in Shanghai and the Trump Tower in Chicago, there are not announcements. It will be difficult and really not worth the effort. - Erebus555 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says that we have to do this with every building out there? --KCMODevin 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well what buildings are going to include on your list then? Ones which are going to be in the top 200 when completed? Well then the IFC in Shanghai will be one and that still doesnt get construction updates. I'm sorry but this list really is not going to be helpful. The only example you give is the Burj Dubai, can you think of any other towers outside Dubai which give out announcement and should be included on this list. Freedom Tower would be one - again - there is focus on it because it is such a sensitive issue among alot of people. - Erebus555 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, and apparently you didn't read it or understand it... Onlly do it with significant top 20-30 buildings that do these annoucements. Like Burj Dubai and Freedom Tower --KCMODevin 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Countries vs. sovereign states

Re [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - In the article the titles of those columns are country. Country ≠ sovereign state. Cf. list of countries and list of sovereign states. — Instantnood 20:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a list of skyscrapers, not a list of political entities, so please avoid politicising it. Insisting on writing "Hong Kong (People's Republic of China" or even "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" adds repeatitive information and unnecesary clutter to the table. Please do not expect general readers to know the difference between your politicised use of commas and parentheses.--Huaiwei 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd wonder who's politicising. Web-based E-Mail account registration, economic information in The Economist, place of origin of exported productions, etc., what's written for Hong Kong? China? or People's Republic of China? Why do we have a list of countries and a list of sovereign states? — Instantnood 08:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong, Hong Kong is equally unhelpful. SchmuckyTheCat 08:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent pictures

I know someone put new pics up on the article, which is good for variety, but shouldn't we have a limit to what can and can't be? Also, is there any thought of creating a gallery? I was thinking no buildings under 300m and only one per country; that way, we don't have a gallery 36 deep. Any thoughts? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Torre Espacio in Madrid (236 m): construction is over

Torre Espacio was inaugurated by Madrid's major today, so I guess it should be added to the list. Here's a link to the piece of news (in Spanish, sorry): http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/03/19/madrid/1174336648.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.6.31.205 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Topped-out or completed?

Which is appropriate to go into the Top 200: topped-out buildings or completed ones? Since the Ryugyong Hotel's on the list, I'm assuming topped-out (since it's not offically compete), but I have been wrong before. Thoughts? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with List of tallest buildings in Europe, List of tallest churches in the world, List of buildings with 100 floors or more

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concensus was 'against merging --Jklamo 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these merges would make Wikipedia more user friendly.--Jorfer 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

About the list of talles churches. I strongly disagree, this is a fairly well kept list and the topic is of interest; also very important older medieval churches may be the first to go from a merged list becasue they no longer exist, or on the current height of buildings score lowly. As a church they are worth mentioning, but maybe not as a building, hence the lists need to be separate. Anyway merging all those cats here will make this list explode into literally many, many thousands of entries. Arnoutf 07:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If they are not notable as a building, but are as a church then how would you explain the first statement in the article that asserts "From the Middle Ages until the advent of the skyscraper, Christian churches have been among the tallest buildings in the world." You are right that this list is a good article but this article has space and this great list would be more visible and garner more edits if it was on this page (which it needs as it is an incomplete list as stated at the bottom of the article); that's all I'm saying.--Jorfer 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a 50 meter tall church (height of app a 15 story apartment building) was very very notable by about 1200. Indeed, in the middle ages these heights were notable but no longer, I see no contradiction in my earlier statement Arnoutf 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is historically notable as it reflects changes in the list of tallest buildings over time which is relevant to this article. We could even create a level 2 section entitled history of the tallest buildings in the world and put it as a level 3 subheader in there. The possibilities for incorporating it into this article are almost endless.--Jorfer 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Euhm yes, that is my main objection, no single article should be endless. Arnoutf 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the article could be endless; I am saying that the possibilities for incorportating it are.--Jorfer 18:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is (in my epxerience with list of towers) that with endless possibilities the list will be endless as well. So no to this merge from me. Arnoutf 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if we incorporated it into a history section, but you have obviously made up your mind.--Jorfer 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Strongly Against. This is the list of buildings in Europe. Not of the entire world. 2. List of Tallest Structures in the world already exceed recommended limit. It's already too big. Elk Salmon 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Europe is a large part of the world and we could use it to expand the various continents in the largest buildings by continent section and leave the countries their own articles; it is just a suggestion. Also, I was thinking of moving the current list of tallest structures to a different title and then splitting List of tallest buildings and structures in the world.--Jorfer 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Strongly Against. With all of this talk of merging, please first understand the current organization. Go to List of buildings and check out the tallest list organization. I put a subset of that list into the See Also section of this article. Please do not merge any of these articles without understanding the current organization. There are lists of buildings, lists of structures, and lists of buildings and structures - all of which are unique and organized (after much effort I might add). Bhludzin 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree about churches. Why on earth would we want to merge an article about specific types of building into a general article? People who are interested in churches are not necessarily interested in the wider subject of buildings. -- Necrothesp 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is about the world's tallest churches (not just churches) and people who are interested in the world tallest buildings will also be interested in older tall building (churches) and vice versa.--Jorfer 00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. A rather presumptuous statement. I'm interested in churches (indeed, I'm responsible for a large portion of the list), but not particularly in other tall buildings. I think you may be assuming that your own interests are shared by all others, which is always dangerous. The two lists stand perfectly well independently, are about distinct subjects, and should be left as such. -- Necrothesp 09:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge The list of tallest churches is very useful on it's own and it'd lose it's character if merged here. The article is already list-cluttered enough as it is. Sagittarian Milky Way 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Against both of them. Continent based list is valuable, because distribution of skycrapers is not equable between continents, most of TOP 200 is in North America and Asia. Also for churches, list is uniqe, muliple interwikified. While merged here, it can be cut-off because its length and that is i afraid of. --Jklamo 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shin Kong Life Tower

Is there any reason why the Shin Kong Life Tower in Taipei is not on this list? At 245m it should be tied for 113th place [17] and I can't think of a reason why having it here would be controversial. I'd add it myself but I'm wary of screwing up the table.

Actually, there seem to be a lot of buildings on the list at Emporis.com that are not listed here. FrogBalancer 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent reverts

OK, last time I tried asking a question on this page, out of respect for its content, I was completely ignored so I just added it anyway. Ergo, at the risk of wasting my time again, here goes:

Not only did the revert I did bring the list to some sort of tolerable viewability, it also corrected some numbering mistakes by previous people. For example (commas added for ease in viewing):

=138 Woolworth Building, New York City, United States, 241 m, 792 ft, 57, 1913
=138 IDS Tower, Minneapolis, United States, 241 m, 792 ft, 55, 2002
=138 Maxdo Centre, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, 241 m, 792 ft, 55, 2002
=138 Mellon Bank Center, Philadelphia, United States, 241 m, 792 ft, 54, 1990
=138 Bank of China Mansion, Qingdao, People's Republic of China, 241 m, 791 ft, 54, 1999

What's wrong with this picture? The fact of the Bank of China Mansion being listed with them because it's the same height meter-wise, but not in feet. That's ok, I thought, because it's probably consistant throughout. However, I find this, among other, example:

123 MetLife Building, New York City, United States, 246 m, 808 ft, 60, 1963
124 Bloomberg Tower, New York City, United States, 246 m, 806 ft, 54, 2005

There are numerous of these errors in the list, and since we don't have a standardized format, I'm assuming the second example is correct, as even though it may be the same height meter-wise, a meter is 3.2+/- larger than a foot, and therefore feet are more accurate when rounding. So, that's why I reverted your edit, and if you find it too difficult to change things appropriately when you add an edifice to the list, please save the edits for someone who's more able to correct them the right way. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, but is was not on wiki for a few days. In my edits i just updated list from emporis [18] (that mean i added more than 20 recent buildings). Every data are from there (including these meter-feet differences. I think that emporis is credible source, so still i do not know why my edits are reverted. If they are more errors, plese correct it in my updated list instead of that older one. --Jklamo 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, not out of spite for your work, but because it took me an hour to correct all the errors and I wasn't going to do it again. Yeah, it's kind of a selfish reason, but unless anyone else wants to fix the edits, someone has to do it. So, please feel free to add the buildings, as it'll make this list more complete and accurate, but keep the errors in mind and add new buildings accordingly...that's all I ask. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of 200

Because the main list is so long and many of the buildings don't even have articles or are terribly tall, I suggest that it be cut to the top 150 or 100. I will cut it to 150 in a week if there are no objections. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Emporis list [19] goes up to 200. I'm sure that's a reliable source. Sagittarian Milky Way 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Torre Mayor listed twice

In the list of highest skyscrapers by architectural detail, Torre Mayor in Mexico City is listed twice: first as the 173rd tallest, and second as the 186th tallest. The difference between the height figures given is two meters, or eight feet. 24.62.234.209 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai

The article on the Burj Dubai actually says the Council on Tall Buildings does not consider it the building tallest in the world. "We will not classify it as a building until it is complete, clad and at least partially open for business to avoid things like the Ryungyong project. Taipei 101 is thus officially the world's tallest until that happens." So why does this article consider it the tallest in the world??? Clearly Taipei 101 still is until the Burj Dubai is completed. I think the article should be reverted. --Thankyoubaby 20:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

According to this article AFP article, the Burj Dubai is now 555 meters tall and the tallest free-standing structure in the world

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070913/wl_mideast_afp/uaedubaiconstructiontower_070913122359;_ylt=ApKCDXx0UQLzjpSmh.7tiLME1vAI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.247.46 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognition by the council (who's arguments are understandable) or not, on 7 April 2008 the Official Burj Dubai website announced that the building had reached a height of 629 meter (160 stories) and thus exceeded the height of the previous tallest structure on earth, KVLY-TV tower. The announcement triggered immediate and unwanted response on April 11, in form of the first unauthorised sky diver sneeking in and trying to jump off. (User:Helgex) 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is currenly 663m tall, with 160 floors completed and it should be not only in the tallest structure, but also tallest building. Want a citation? Just google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.157.72 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The status of "tallest building" is only used for habitable structures which are topped out or are complete. The Burj Dubai is still under construction and therefore is not a building. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I have much more to offer except this building shouldn't be on the list! Until someone's occupying the top floor, it's just a lot of concrete!BashBrannigan (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By CTBUH standards, Burj Dubai should definitely be topping the completed list, as it's topped-out, as Leitmanp pointed out above (however, it wasn't topped-out at the time of his comment). --timsdad ^(talk) 01:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

London Bridge Tower

Could someone please add London Bridge ToWER to Buildings Under Contruction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.2.251 (talk) 16:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't belong on the list, because it is not under construction yet. It is still only approved. See here and here. When it officially begins construction (which is not scheduled to occur until 2008), it can be added. Raime 16:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5